The General Assembly passes a resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings every two years. The 2008 declaration included an explicit reference to killings committed because of the victims’ sexual preferences.
But this year, Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words “sexual orientation” and replacing them with “discriminatory reasons on any basis.” […]
The resolution, which is expected to be formally adopted by the General Assembly in December, specifies many other types of violence, including killings for racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons and killings of refugees, indigenous people and other groups.
Reuters: U.N. panel cuts gay reference from violence measure
November 21, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I love your blog but that is an outrageous and misleading headline.
November 21, 2010 at 5:36 pm
How so? The UN explicitly condemns the execution for racial, national, ethnic, religious or linguistic reasons. But not for sexual orientation. How much more clear a message can they send?
November 24, 2010 at 7:50 am
Christopher is a gay oppression denier.
November 25, 2010 at 2:47 am
Reuters: “Morocco and Mali introduced [the] amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations.”
Jack Malebranche, ‘Androphilia’ (2006): “Sodomy has been decriminalized in the United States, and America lagged behind most of Europe in this significant achievement. It seems that if gay advocates today were truly concerned about real oppression, they’d be concentrating their efforts on political asylum programs for homos in Muslim countries, where accused homosexuals are still routinely executed or forced, foolishly, to submit to testosterone injections.”
November 25, 2010 at 9:22 am
Trevor Blake, what is your point exactly? Was Jack Malebranche’s quote supposed to sufficiently express whatever it is you’re trying to say or insinuate? Jack Malebranche (actually Jack Donovan) is an in-fighting self-loathing gay, who hasn’t learned jack shit about gay history and the gay liberation movement. He’s an artist and a writer, and a priest in the Church of Satan, not a Sociologist, not a Psychologist, not an Anthropologist, not a Historian, or anything relevant that would give weight to his criticisms of gays. Not only does he not hold any of those academic titles, he hasn’t even done some homework in those domains on gay relevant topics. Evidently you haven’t either, Trevor; Malebranche doesn’t count. (If your quote is correct, it appears Malebranche even as a so-called writer uses contractions in his formal writing; eww.)
“It seems that if gay advocates today were truly concerned about real oppression, they’d be concentrating their efforts on political asylum programs…” – Um, there ARE gay advocates doing that. But I guess if you and Jack do not know about them, then it is somehow fair game for you both to make a fallacious argument from ignorance and suggest there are not.
Trevor, and Jack by proxy, you don’t have to have opinions about things you know little to nothing about. Your comment isn’t just wrong but negative. Why don’t you stay removed from LGBT issues unless you’re willing to do your homework and contribute something constructive. We don’t need your bullshit ignorance on top of everything else we have to deal with. And don’t blame the victim, it makes you sound like a religious person that believes in a ‘just world’.